Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp662523pxu; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:32:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5FZb4HVRXvtZLnOtHq90xCEAC+VUJxIxe2zBdeeTIAyMUztvtkDw5IKGt1C7p0/0Zz41h X-Received: by 2002:a50:85c6:: with SMTP id q6mr4019355edh.126.1607016760410; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 09:32:40 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1607016760; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Pjyx2+xJaZ9PfAZSYAOX6aGDksck9EMar82sgrnkfk+xPF3AQZc2a9jm3+FAaoJ22l wfsqvsbtMUer0ZJU6U5IDSarNvVEIhLo7S6tmCnjHyyK02z1UXuZy1vm6QJWRrcgK/62 rlK2Bh3nhJUBZvl1gbBZ4ABglMEsQaF3yP0XU7m9lyJXP6wRA3nDf1cf1yrBm6S/tv6v cRS+KwlxT+XI+YlWM+/c2D4S/kX/iHuC+LhTgpN44hqUthulMxz68Zk0a7GcnDNPU/4u hsoitbhnEfyBWTHpAIt/Vjc9yJyFsxzte1WRaWTSS+baNwuGqxMiyIx9n3mw+1P8GVnu GSdA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=LU6ZR9WyJmSmaolnmiGLh2vkrgMsPb8f+mCK1ibHAT4=; b=NVZ5vPxR6KuxKqS19ge9/LN/l9/dp7U4if9Z0QRjwDAR7fm/88CeDLVmINLr58mghY IAIidD+1y6CbL0/G3ICfuFHT7ILyZPc27j/7Xfk/5i1bA+FU7utuFihbzBN+aGcGolLZ fehemh01ul7j+hVCCMgwhdJhuDzYame6DzbkmDOsfqJDfQ/RiCPAfqxY4NxjwsAyjhey upe0hyGGDRFE8NF5PcRFmo5TqcmlNU/6AEHQ9HFHCT7WNfZByPsZjGURH/YjHWDfmGuT I+XndBfB0s/LvsdMIDIuA9ngvqvQ7G/Rn9q8V+2cwK+kAADXnaRQaR0+Z8LK0vHT64ZY yTVg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f16si1312929eds.523.2020.12.03.09.32.15; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 09:32:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727363AbgLCRaF (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:30:05 -0500 Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.193]:14789 "EHLO relay1-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726066AbgLCRaF (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:30:05 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 86.194.74.19 Received: from localhost (lfbn-lyo-1-997-19.w86-194.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.194.74.19]) (Authenticated sender: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com) by relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D4C624000D; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:29:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:19 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Miroslav Lichvar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz , Prarit Bhargava , Alessandro Zummo , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: adapt allowed RTC update error Message-ID: <20201203172919.GC7535@piout.net> References: <20201201171420.GN1900232@localhost> <20201201173540.GH5487@ziepe.ca> <87mtywe2zu.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201202162723.GJ5487@ziepe.ca> <87a6uwdnfn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201202205418.GN5487@ziepe.ca> <874kl3eu8p.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <87zh2vd72z.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201203021047.GG3544@piout.net> <87pn3qdhli.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pn3qdhli.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/12/2020 16:39:21+0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Alexandre, > > On Thu, Dec 03 2020 at 03:10, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 03/12/2020 02:14:12+0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> That said, can somebody answer the one million dollar question which > >> problem is solved by all of this magic nonsense? > >> > > The goal was to remove the 500ms offset for all the RTCs but the > > MC146818 because there are RTC that will reset properly their counter > > when setting the time, meaning they can be set very precisely. > > The MC setting is halfways precise. The write resets the divider chain > and when the reset is removed then the next UIP will happen after the > magic 0.5 seconds. So yes, writing it 500ms _before_ the next second is > halfways correct assumed that there is no interference between > ktime_get_real() and the actual write which is a silly assumption as the > code is fully preemptible. > > > IIRC, used in conjunction with rtc_hctosys which also adds > > inconditionnaly 500ms this can ends up with the system time > > being one second away from the wall clock time which NTP will take quite > > some time to remove. > > The rtc_cmos() driver has a fun comment in cmos_set_time().... > > The logic in sync_cmos_clock() and rtc_set_ntp_time() is different as I > pointed out: sync_cmos_clock() hands -500ms to rtc_tv_nsec_ok() and > rtc_set_ntp_time() uses +500ms, IOW exactly ONE second difference in > behaviour. > > > Coincidentally, I was going to revert those patches for v5.11. > > Which will break the rtc_cmos() driver in a different way. We should > really fix that proper and just have the 500ms offset for rtc_cmos, > aka. MC146818. When other drivers want a different offset, then they > still can do so. > My point was to get back to the previous situation where only rtc_cmos was supposed to work properly by removing rtc_tv_nsec_ok and set_offset_nsec. > The direct /dev/rtc settime ioctl is not using that logic anyway. Thats > the business of the user space application to get that straight which is > scheduling lottery as well. I still don't see how userspace is worse than systohc in that regard and why we need to do that in the kernel. Especially since hctosys is doing a very bad job trying to read the time from the RTC. You may as well not bother with the 500ms and just set the time to the current or next second. And what about the non configurable 659 period, isn't that policy that should be left to userspace configuration? I'm still convinced that set_offset_nsec is not needed to set the time accurately and I still want to remove it. Also, this may be a good time to move systohc.c to kernel/time/ntp.c as this is definitively some NTP specific code being an RTC consumer, very much like alarmtimer.c -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com